Face it, Kerry is a puppet, and that’s one reason Hillary is gone, she would not have ruined her chance at running for Ex office, and the socialist Lib’s knew this was coming
-
Recent Posts
Archives
Categories
- Art (88)
- Behavior and Psychology (20)
- Business, Industry and Finance (63)
- Constitution and Law (370)
- Consumer Affairs (4)
- Culture (17)
- Deep State (5)
- Economy (3)
- Education (238)
- Environment (74)
- Fraud Alert (8)
- Global Issues (1)
- Health and Medicine (149)
- History (8)
- Humour (94)
- Military (115)
- Morals and Ethics (149)
- News Media (11)
- Police, Crime, Security (215)
- Politics and Government (144)
- Religion (91)
- Science and Technology (19)
- Veterans' Issues (13)
- World (12)
Recent Comments
- ClayPidgeon on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Michael Davis on Life In Chico and Other Places Infected by Bums
- Patricia Lieder on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Dawn on Thaddeus Kerns Boy Aviator
- scott sproat on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
Recent NorCal Blogs Posts
I just don’t understand you. Obama told the UN quite plainly: “We’re going to give you a shot at this, and help all we can. But if you can’t bring Assad to heel, we will.
How does this not concur with your world view?
In fact, things are going rather well, for the moment. Both the Russians and the Iranians, his allies, have told Assad that he’s courting utter ruin. He can form a more inclusive government, one that includes (and thereby restrains) the Islamists … or we will come ham-fisting into this mess, and make it that much messier.
I guess Obama if he can’t use his executive order BS , he will just sacrifice another one of his pawns.
As the Title stated: does this administration even care or listen to any of us anyway.
NO! The President does as he pleases and leaves the heavy lifting to others.
Libby Obama appears the fool on the world stage and Putin plays him like a fiddle. Obama is not respected and is not feared…it goes right over his narcissistic head, but…he got lucky. Putin has a terrorist problem or this mess with Assad would not be going well at all.
Meanwhile, out in the real world…
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&load=8910&mpid=56
PJTV? The real world?
Hardly.
Someday you’re going to leave that bubble you live in, and the shock’ll kill you, probably.
Off topic … but I am positively shocked.
The Iranian President is on twitter ?!?
Why should anyone “listen” to this mass hysteria? Why should we listen to conspiracy theories, baseless accusations, fact-free diatribes, and dog-whistle politics?
The Arms Trade Treaty does not, in any way, compromise U.S. sovereignty. I’ve proven that false enough times in the past, I won’t go through it again. The facts are easily available to you. Sufficed to say, that idea is stupid, and you are stupid if you believe it.
We’ll listen when you start living in the real world, and start bringing real ideas to the table, not this paranoid persecution fantasy bullshit you’ve been coasting on because it riles up the base for the last twenty years.
If this is the best you have to offer, if you can actually forward this mindless, unsupported crap without even the slightest hint of shame, then you don’t get to be angry at everyone else for not patting you on the back and pretending that you’re actually offering us legitimate debate. You have no one to blame but yourselves.
Should Chris consider becoming a Canadian so he can attack that government as rabidly as he attacks Post Scripts?
“Concern over gun rights has kept Canada from signing on.”
In any case it is not a done deal even though this President and the Democratic party think they can ride roughshod over the Constitution.
We will see if anti 2nd amendment left wing tyrants and their propagandist dupes like Chris get their way. Woe to the Constitution and freedom if they do.
Ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) reminded the president —
As you know, Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution requires the United States Senate to provide its advice and consent before a treaty becomes binding under United States law. The Senate has not yet provided its advice and consent, and may not provide such consent. As a result, the Executive Branch is not authorized to take any steps to implement the treaty.
Checks and balances are a good thing, no? Not to Chris and the rest of his dog pack.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/16618-kerry-signs-un-arms-trade-treaty-civilian-disarmament-advancing
DECONSTRUCTING CHRIS (again, why should I even bother?)
“Why should we listen to conspiracy theories, baseless accusations, fact-free diatribes, and dog-whistle politics?” Again Chris describes himself through seriously dysfunctional misplaced projection.
“The Arms Trade Treaty does not, in any way, compromise U.S. sovereignty” Sadly, as usual, Chris is not in possession of the facts, only a very narrow and politically motivated assessment of the facts for which he desperately tries to make Post Scripts his personal whipping boy.
“We’ll listen when you start living in the real world et cetera, ad naseam” Just another of the usual scurrilous personal attacks typical of Chris (who thinks just like 99% of the left I have ever known) that they have a monopoly on truth and sanity. *Yawn*
“If this is the best you have to offer … (et cetera and ad naseam again)” The usual pathetic and puerile braggadocio dismissal Chris and the left are so famous for. *Yawn (again)*
Yep, Chris has it dead nuts right on. Post Scripts is stupid. Oops I mean STOOOOPID! Chris has already won the argument! Only he is in possesion of the “facts.” On your knees you pigheaded racist fools.
Ooops, I left out from “We’ll listen when you start living in the real world et cetera, ad naseam” the question, “Who is this we?” The jackbooted speech Nazi thugs of the left? I guess Chris and his “we” are a friggin’ army that should be feared — or at the very least be taken seriously. Lay down your arms or die! “We” are not listening!
President Obama finds the Constitution a terrible inconvenience, a “charter of negative liberties”, and he ignores it quite often.
Will he ignore it Once again…perhaps as a last great act for his time in office?
Western Journalism:
Will Obama act independently as he has before ignoring the system of checks and balances that were designed to protect the people? I ask you…within the next year or two what has he to lose?
Chris Who?
Hum…How many here have actually read the treaty?
hard to comment when no one actually has read it as the comments are futile.
There is a push back on President Obama and Congress that the left and right should agree upon.
Instead people follow the untrue Propaganda conjured up by the extreme right faction.
Funny those who are collecting government paychecks are trying to abolish all gov for corporate rule. Amazing!
The banks and wall street run the country and that is the sad fact.
Maybe a venture to read the treaty before one speaks?
Anyway nothing matters more than to demand Congress VOTE NO ON FAST TRACK renewal.
Then the TPP must also be released to the public.
All this talk about the NWO by the very party that supports them the most. Hypocrisy at best from the right.
The TPP is the biggest threat to sovereignty of all nations. That treaty is the #1 issue. To all Americans,
Both left and right will fight this if they are Americans.
Corporations will spend billions to protect it as the right to sue a country because you did not make money destroying their land is a very pleasing thought.
Ahhhh Dewey I think we may have confused you about the treaty we were talking about.
The ‘UN Arms Treaty’ that Kerry recently signed without Congress’s approval(but most likely with Obamas orders)thats the one this post is about.
Not the TTP Trans-Pacific Partnership dating back to 2002 I believe.
Tina quotes from Western Journalism:
“If signed by our president, it could be the most direct and overt effort to annul the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; for treaties take supremacy over the Constitution, per Article VI.”
Outrageously misinformed. Treaties do NOT take supremacy over the Constitution. That is a woeful misinterpretation of Article VI. Treaties are only valid if they comply with the Constitution. This has been settled U.S. law since Reid v. Covert in 1957, which ruled that no branch of government can have powers conferred to it by treaty that have not been conferred by the U.S. constitution.
As usual, you people have no clue what you’re talking about.
It’s like some watch Fox, read blogs and follow the leader.
How I long for real facts to overtake propaganda!
I suggest one ready the treaty and change the channel
Jack’s latest post offers a good reason why “they” don’t listen to you.
Dewey what makes you think that the treaty has not been read by those who express concerns on FOX or on blogs? Seems to me you dismiss out of hand the opinions of other based on your own ideological biases. We all have them you know.
Tina: “Dewey what makes you think that the treaty has not been read by those who express concerns on FOX or on blogs?”
This would imply that you have indeed read the treaty. Let’s not make misleading implications. Have you read the treaty, Tina?
It does not imply that I have read the treaty.
I have not read the entire treaty. I have read parts of it and skimmed others. I asked a question. I did not express an opinion…back off.
“Treaties do NOT take supremacy over the Constitution. That is a woeful misinterpretation of Article VI. Treaties are only valid if they comply with the Constitution. This has been settled U.S. law since Reid v. Covert in 1957, which ruled that no branch of government can have powers conferred to it by treaty that have not been conferred by the U.S. constitution.”
The Constitution also spells out what a President, Congress, and the Judicial Branch can and cannot do.
(Readers take note: I have not checked to see if the opinions expressed below comply with leftist thinking on the matters in question nor have I checked to see if the events actually happened. I offer these as examples that seem relevant either way as an exercise pertaining to the thought that, in practice we can be assured that “Treaties do NOT take supremacy over the Constitution.”)
A sterling list of examples where the Constitution has been or may have been ignored offered by Paul Skousen. Here’s one of his ten:
And this is his #1:
Rick Santorum has a few examples of his own:
A meager blogger, Truth Seeker:
Tina: “Readers take note: I have not checked to see if the opinions expressed below comply with leftist thinking on the matters in question nor have I checked to see if the events actually happened.”
This is the funniest, and most revealing, thing you have ever written.
Maybe it’s time to consider that, unlike your own opinions, “leftist thinking” actually is based on “events that happened.”
Much of that information is false.
Paul Skousen says:
“#9. — Checks and Balances Failure: The Chairmanship of the UN Security Council: Where was Congress when President Obama became the chairman of the powerful UN Security Council in 2009? The normal monthly rotation for that chair goes to the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. because Article 1.9 of the Constitution forbids the president (and all other office-holders) from accepting any present, foreign office or title from a foreign country or a foreign potentate unless it is specifically authorized by Congress. The Founders wanted to prevent deal-making, corruption, and foreign influence from affecting America’s internal affairs.”
I’ll be charitable for once and call this one a disagreement. The UN is not a foreign state and has no real power. I don’t believe this violates Article 1.9 but, in this case, I think reasonable people can disagree about that.
However, much of Skousen’s list is pure nonsense. For example, his #4 example of Obama’s unconstitutional acts is the TARP bailout of 2008. Obama was not president in 2008. George W. Bush was.
He also says, “Language in the bill says the health care law may NOT be changed or amended by anyone once signed into law.”
That’s just not true, obviously. That’s proven wrong by the very fact that there already have been changes and amendments to the law since it was signed.
Rick Santorum says:
“Two days after he took office, President Obama rescinded by executive order the “Mexico City policy,” which prevents foreign aid going to organizations that perform or promote abortions. No legislation passed, no debate, just an executive order.”
That’s true, but it’s not an example of an unconstitutional action. Bill Clinton also rescinded the Mexico City policy early in his term. Bush reinstated it early in his. Both these actions were executive orders and within the power of the president.
“In early 2011, the Obama administration stop(ped) enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, a law duly passed by Congress and signed into law. Here President Obama has directed his Department of Justice to ignore the Constitution and separation of powers and not enforce a law.”
This is absolutely, 100% false. Obama has chosen not to DEFEND the law in court; he never stopped enforcing it. Many past presidents have chosen not to defend laws they view as unconstitutional, and that is well within their constitutional authority.
“In early 2012, Obama’s Health and Human Services department set forth the so-called “contraceptive mandate,” which requires all employers – including religious charities and institutions – to provide free contraception to all employees, a clear violation of the Constitution’s guarantees for freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.”
No. Exclusively religious institutions are not affected, only those that do secular work. That is fair and constitutional. If as a standard practice you hire employees who do not share your religious beliefs, you do not get to impose your religious beliefs on them. Furthermore the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations and businesses do not have religious rights, only people do. Since it is the corporation or business offering health insurance, not the individual, this policy does not violate the first amendment, but rather protects the religious freedom of workers.
I don’t have time to check every claim of the blogger you cited, but at least some of those are inaccurate:
“23 Executive Orders on gun control – infringement of the 2nd Amendment
2 more Executive Orders added on gun control – infringement of the 2nd Amendment”
We’d have to know exactly which orders he’s talking about, because obviously, not every regulation regarding guns is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment. None of these executive orders has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court as far as I know.
“Attempt to tax political contributions – 1st Amendment”
Not sure what this is in reference to, but there is plenty of evidence that the Founders did not see political contributions as protected speech. They warned against “moneyed interests” influencing politics and would likely be appalled at the influence money has in politics today–and yes, that includes the billions spent on Obama’s campaigns.
“DOMA Law – Obama directed DOJ to ignore the Constitution and separation of powers and not enforce the law. “ he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3”
Again, no. It is simply a lie to say that he chose not to “enforce” the law.
“Refuses to acknowledge state’s 10th Amendment rights to nullify Obamacare”
Nullification is illegal. There was kind of a war over it.
“Plans to sign U.N. Firearms treaty – 2nd Amendment.”
The UN Firearms treaty does not violate the 2nd Amendment.
“Congress did not approve Obama’s war in Libya.”
There was no “war” in Libya.
That blogger is right about drone strikes, wiretapping and such. I would love to see more concern from both liberals and conservatives about those issues, rather than things that never happened.
Opinion and information related to the UN gun grabbing treaty from David Kopel- CATO:
Those of us that have been around for awhile have observed through the decades the “slippery slope” created by communitarian thinkers to control populations and establish central authority (UN) and central planners (Billy Boy/Obama/Hillary) as the rulers of the world!
Former UN Ambassador John Bolten and former U.S. Department of Justice Attorney John Yoo write in the Wall Street Journal:
These two gentlemen have authority and credentials to speak to this issue and in their opinion: “It is far easier to advance an agenda through treaties, unwritten international law and even “norms” delivered by an amorphous “international community.”
We all know which (radical) party has the gun control/gun confiscating agenda.